US issues travel alert for Americans in Europe

[CaptainPanic]

When I read this (link to BBC news), my first reaction was: WTF???

 

... The [united States] department did not specify a country, issuing the updated guidance for the whole of Europe. [...] They [unnamed security sources] said cities in the UK, France and Germany were thought to be targets for the militants, in attacks analysts feared could be similar to the 2008 atrocities in Mumbai...

To which the UK replied by pointing at all the other European countries in an attempt to seem safer than the rest:

 

The [UK] Foreign Office has updated its travel advice for Europe, warning of a "high threat" of attacks in countries including France and Germany

I mean, it has little to do with actual safety. For example, according to the BBC, up to 25,000 tourists die in road accidents worldwide every year. Al-Qaeda terrorists might bomb a number of tourist sites, but they will never achieve to kill a number of tourists that is anywhere near significant when compared to the road kill...

 

An American website conveniently lists all the tourist deaths in 2006-2008, placing terrorism on an insignificant 6th place, after Vehicle Accidents (677), Homicides (580), Suicides (289), Drowning (265) and Air Accidents 66. Terrorism in that period killed 54 American citizens (including some deaths in Iraq, which makes me wonder what a "tourist" is). Terrorism accounts for less than 3% of the non-natural deaths worldwide, including conflict areas... and much less when food poisoning and other diseases are included.

 

I also completely fail to see the purpose of scaremongering in this particular case. When citizens are scared, they might vote differently, but typical tourists have no right to vote in the country they visit for a holiday... so this has nothing to do with a shift of power in elections (or does it?).

 

Is it just an attempt to keep some dollars and pounds within the borders of the USA and the UK? Has the Economic Crisis driven us to a point where we just attempt to destroy each other's tourist sector in an ordinary economic fight?

 

Anyway, my main question is: What the hell is wrong with those departments and foreign offices? How dare they advise against visiting my neighboring countries, and my part of the world? It's one of the safest areas of the world! If Europe is not safe anymore, then where the hell are tourists supposed to go?

[Ophiolite]

If Europe is not safe anymore, then where the hell are tourists supposed to go?

Disney World Welcomes Wimps.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well we could all travel to Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity. Should be pretty safe, since its in our home country where nothing can possibly go wrong.

[Pangloss]

It's a good thing Bush is gone, or the whole mess would have been laid at the White House door. Even so I still heard a story on ABC News tonight with some audio clips from angry British radio talk show hosts cursing those "bloody stupid Americans".

 

All I can say is, Bob's your uncle.

[Pangloss]

I just ran across the quote I was thinking about when I wrote the above. It's Andrew Pierce at LBC, saying "They're pathetic, aren't they, those Americans". LexisNexis has a transcript here.

 

Of course I have no idea if he's just some sort of shock jock or something. LBC's web site has a bio on him here, saying that he's a columnist for the Daily Mail.

[Marat]

These alerts obviously serve no practical purpose whatsoever, since even in the worst terrorist attack which has yet occurred, the 9/11 assault, only 1 out of 100,000 Americans was killed by the incident. A risk that size is simply negligible, so if there had been a certain warning to Americans on 9/11 that an attack would occur that day somewhere in the coutnry, it would have been statistically irrational for any individual to make any special precautions.

 

The real purpose of these warnings is probably to keep the public alarmed about terrorism so the massive diversion of funds from domestic programs to the military, the CIA, the FBI, and the police, as well as the erosion of civil liberties, can continue.

[Moontanman]

Damn, just what I needed to hear, my son is back packing across Europe right now, my sphincters are all tightly closed as it is ....

[CaptainPanic]

Damn, just what I needed to hear, my son is back packing across Europe right now, my sphincters are all tightly closed as it is ....

LOL!!

If you are worried about your son backpacking through Europe - then think about me: I am constantly living in Europe, and so are 500 million others!

[jackson33]

It is interesting the President has indicated the US can absorb a terrorist attack, in the US, then the administration issues a vague warning for some European Countries, where supposedly they might not have that capability. Frankly I'd feel safer in the UK, France or Germany under their National Security systems, than what's going on here. Technically and statistically Americans Traveling in Europe are much safer, than a trip to many US Cities.

 

Motive; Any election year, especially like the one this year in the US, always brings out off the wall comments, designed to satisfy certain segments of the US society. The Administration, best remember, the President himself, has planned a 12 day trip into Asia on November 4th, which is the current hotbed for terrorist activity.

[Moontanman]

LOL!!

If you are worried about your son backpacking through Europe - then think about me: I am constantly living in Europe, and so are 500 million others!

 

 

Big difference in living somewhere and knowing what is up and being a back packer but I know he's in little danger but it doesn't help much...

[padren]

It's a good thing Bush is gone, or the whole mess would have been laid at the White House door. Even so I still heard a story on ABC News tonight with some audio clips from angry British radio talk show hosts cursing those "bloody stupid Americans".

 

All I can say is, Bob's your uncle.

Oh sure Bush digs us into a huge fear deficit and and you blame it all on the new guy

 

 

Personally, I would rank these sorts of alerts as "Incredibly unlikely but we don't want to be called asleep at the wheel if something happens right before an election."

 

 

Moon: tell your son to end every other sentence with "eh" and he'll be fine - but seriously it would be far more risky to backpack around the states and people still do it.

[CaptainPanic]

Big difference in living somewhere and knowing what is up and being a back packer but I know he's in little danger but it doesn't help much...

No, I do not believe that there is any difference.

 

Your remark would be valid if we compared my hometown with your hometown, or to a lesser extent my country with your country or state. In that case, I would have superior knowledge about my place, and I believe I would be able to avoid problems a bit better.

 

But I also travel in Europe - for work and for pleasure. I leave the Netherlands about 6 times per year... and I visit places that I know as well as you do (i.e. I do not know anything).

 

Don't let the bastards scare you... Tourism is always a little risky, and it's normal that parents worry about their kids. But there is no significant threat to tourists in Europe.

Edited October 12, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[zapatos]

The real purpose of these warnings is probably to keep the public alarmed about terrorism so the massive diversion of funds from domestic programs to the military, the CIA, the FBI, and the police, as well as the erosion of civil liberties, can continue.

Wow. That is one powerful warning.

 

Is it just an attempt to keep some dollars and pounds within the borders of the USA and the UK? Has the Economic Crisis driven us to a point where we just attempt to destroy each other's tourist sector in an ordinary economic fight?

 

Anyway, my main question is: What the hell is wrong with those departments and foreign offices? How dare they advise against visiting my neighboring countries, and my part of the world? It's one of the safest areas of the world! If Europe is not safe anymore, then where the hell are tourists supposed to go?

I guess it is also possible they want us to be careful because they have heard of a possible plot against tourists. And according to your link:

 

"US citizens were not told to avoid travelling in Europe, and the advisory is less serious than a travel warning."

[CaptainPanic]

I guess it is also possible they want us to be careful because they have heard of a possible plot against tourists. And according to your link:

 

"US citizens were not told to avoid travelling in Europe, and the advisory is less serious than a travel warning."

If your government told you to be careful of meteorites falling from the sky, would you cross the street looking up for meteorites, or sideways looking for traffic??

 

My point is that there may be a threat of terrorism (there's always a plot against the West, according to the agencies), but that threat is negligible compared to traffic accidents and other threats to tourists and the rest of the population in any country (except perhaps Afghanistan, Iraq and a few more unsafe countries). It would be more wise from your government to warn for bad quality food, or the Brittish and Irish driving their cars on the other side of the road!

 

I know I just repeated my own statements - sorry for not adding much new to the discussion.

[zapatos]

If your government told you to be careful of meteorites falling from the sky, would you cross the street looking up for meteorites, or sideways looking for traffic??

 

My point is that there may be a threat of terrorism (there's always a plot against the West, according to the agencies), but that threat is negligible compared to traffic accidents and other threats to tourists and the rest of the population in any country (except perhaps Afghanistan, Iraq and a few more unsafe countries). It would be more wise from your government to warn for bad quality food, or the Brittish and Irish driving their cars on the other side of the road!

 

I know I just repeated my own statements - sorry for not adding much new to the discussion.

I agree the risk is minimal to any one individual and that the warning is therefore not going to do much to increase my safety. But it is the government's job to look out for its citizens and let them know if there is a potential issue. I know they can't warn me of everything, but I'd rather have too much information and count on myself to weigh my options for what is best for me.

 

I also wouldn't be surprised to find that many of the people who are unhappy with the government releasing the warning (because the people don't feel they need the information) are also sometimes unhappy when the government does not release information (because the people felt they would need the information). Puts the government in a tough spot. No matter what they do, someone is going to be unhappy with them.

 

I warn my kids about all kinds of unlikely dangers. I don't expect them to take steps to avoid all of them all the time or they couldn't get out of bed in the morning. But I think they are better off for hearing them, and they may do a better job of spotting danger on that rare occassion when it does come up.

 

So... I guess to me this was just a friendly warning, to be aware of something that may come up but probably won't, and not to take it too seriously. I didn't find anything nefarious in the government's actions. I filed it with all the other warnings I get in a day (Do not use the toaster near water! Placing the plastic bag over your head is dangerous! Deer crossing! etc.). I just don't see what the big deal is.

[swansont]

A Slate article on it

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2269845

 

It's a CYA maneuver. It's too vague to be of any use whatsoever, but if something does happen, they can't be blamed for not telling us.

[zapatos]

It's a CYA maneuver. It's too vague to be of any use whatsoever, but if something does happen, they can't be blamed for not telling us.

Yes, CYA certainly. But it serves other purposes as well, such as keeping people aware that the problem has not gone away. If I don't ever hear about people coming down with measles, maybe I don't really worry about getting my kid vaccinated. And if I go a long time without hearing about the bad guys planning to do me harm, maybe I don't take any action when I see that unattended bag on the bus.

[CaptainPanic]

I agree the risk is minimal to any one individual and that the warning is therefore not going to do much to increase my safety. But it is the government's job to look out for its citizens and let them know if there is a potential issue. I know they can't warn me of everything, but I'd rather have too much information and count on myself to weigh my options for what is best for me.

Agreed. It is one of the government's tasks to inform us.

But my problem is not with the information they give. To use the same analogy as before: it's ok to tell people that meteorites occasionally fall from the sky. It's a different thing altogether to remind people on a daily to weekly basis that meteorites kill people, and to make it sound like an actual and realistic threat.

 

I would be pleased if the governments and media would sometimes relativise the articles regarding terrorism. I am completely missing the relation how terrorism stands in relation to other actual threats. It's is the lack of that information that pisses me off.

 

So... I guess to me this was just a friendly warning, to be aware of something that may come up but probably won't, and not to take it too seriously. I didn't find anything nefarious in the government's actions. I filed it with all the other warnings I get in a day (Do not use the toaster near water! Placing the plastic bag over your head is dangerous! Deer crossing! etc.). I just don't see what the big deal is.

Now that you mention the warnings for "using the toaster near water", I realize that people in the UK, USA and Canada are much more used to warnings than myself. There are significantly fewer warning stickers on products and in public areas in the Netherlands than in those countries. For example, the yellow "slippery floor" warning symbol, placed on wet floors has only been around here for a few years, and in most places people are still expected to recognize a wet floor without the warning symbol. Terrorism is one of the few issues that we get warned about - and get warned about constantly - as if it's the biggest threat of them all. If you get constantly "spammed" about everything, perhaps you don't take warnings so serious anymore.

 

Yet, something tells me that many governments worldwide make terrorism bigger than it actually is.

[Ophiolite]

How many people died from food poisoning last year?

How many people died from malaria?

How many from road accidents, shooting accidents, drowning, hypothermia.......?

How many died from terrorism?

 

The risks are miniscule, the expenditures to counter inappropriate, and the hype to alert us is a clear victory for the terrorists.

[Pangloss]

Here's an interestingly different way of looking at the subject of security warnings, from an op-ed piece in today's New York Times:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/opinion/14bobbitt.html?_r=1

 

We could vastly improve our system if we stepped back and looked more closely at the strategy of alert systems. Most important, the government should distinguish between three distinct functions its advisories can perform: informing, alerting and warning.

 

Informing means simply putting into the public domain as much as possible of what the government knows without compromising intelligence sources and countermeasures. Alerting means contacting public officials and people in the private sector who manage the likeliest targets when there is a good reason for new security steps. Warning means cautioning the public when there is something specific to be alarmed about and the government can give specific advice about how to reduce risks substantially.